Zadig wrote on Feb 27, 2013, 10:34:I really enjoyed Homeworld 2 and would've liked to see more games in the series, but the RTS genre died and doesn't appear to be coming back.

It makes me nauseous to realize that a portion of the money wasted making terrible WoWclones (TOR!) could've resurrected many old series & genres. Dungeon Keeper, Syndicate, Elite, city building games etc. Hopefully kickstarter/greenlight will continue to take the money and terrible decision making away from the mouth-breathers (EA/Bioware, etc).

Dead? No. Just more niche. Sins of Solar Empire did wonderfully well. Total War games still do well. And MOBAs are doing very well. Can't really do a Homeworld MOBA, but you can do a Homeworld 4x or TW/Civ style game if you wanted to.

Cutter wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 09:29:His answer wasn't very direct, or not entirely complete I'd say. I could see them changing their mind at some point. So unless it's stipulated in writing I wouldn't hold my breath. And at the very least they never said there wouldn't be a charge for used games - which there already is for multiplayer. I'm sure the other shoe has yet to drop on this issue.

Sony doesn't charge a thing for multiplayer used games. Publishers like EA do.

All things considered, the PS3 debuted as the superior piece of hardware of the generation and still is the superior piece of hardware of the generation. Built in Bluray, WiFi, Bluetooth, rechargeable controllers, HDMI, video/audio storage/streaming capabilities, Netflix, Sony's video/game download service, etc. Many of these things were cost add-ons or appeared in later iterations of the products from other vendors. While the PS3 was ridiculously expensive, it was also very much worth the price of admission considering what you got for your money compared to the other consoles.

So, basically, I don't see unfulfilled promises as having any real effect on the success of the device. All it shows is that executives are just like politicians.

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 12:15:Wargaming has done what? League of Legends and World of tanks? Where are they getting all these resources to buy studios left and right? Considering they just acquired Day 1 Studios as well. Is League really that successful?

Wargaming is responsible for World of Tanks, but not League of Legends.

That said, it looks like they may be looking at a MOBA or a Guild Wars type game with these acquisitions.

As far as resources, well done free to play games are cash cows right now, apparently. LoL is the most played game worldwide and World of Tanks does fairly well. The key to both is their international appeal. LoL is huge in southeast/east Asia and WoT is huge in Europe/Russia.

Creston wrote on Feb 1, 2013, 11:31:Publishers add nothing to the gaming industry.

Creston

Except for, you know, the capital required to make a game like GTA, Saints Row, etc.

Depends. These days, many formerly independent dev houses are now second party/subsidiary developers for publishers(such as the aforementioned Volition and DMA[now Rockstar North]). While they benefit from the capital, there is a long history of successful independent developers that self-financed or otherwise funded through publishing deals and such while still retaining their independence(Valve under Sierra is an obvious example).

Homefront wasn't bad or inferior. Maybe a little late, but otherwise a pretty good game. Problem is that every publisher wants home runs, not good games. If it ain't selling like Call of Duty, might as well not make it I guess

bhcompy wrote on Jan 14, 2013, 18:32:Uh, spoiler, but didn't Joker die? It can't be a DC animated universe/Diniverse Batman property without the only arch-villain that matters.

The Arkham games were never really part of the DCAU, even if they did reuse the VAs. Certain aspects of the game just don't align, as it was never meant to.

I understand from an official continuity perspective(simply because Joker dying just doesn't fit any canon), but if you pull in all the principle VAs you're basically tying it to that, and Dini is involved as well, which just adds to it.

I guess it's better to say that if Kevin Conroy is there, so must his foil

Jerykk wrote on Jan 7, 2013, 01:37:Also, the fixation on story is never a good thing. Conviction did that and we ended up with a much more linear and scripted game than before. Gameplay should dictate story, not vice versa.

It's a Clancy game. They've been awful since Red Storm was bought out.

bhcompy wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 12:58:Maybe it's just you. I still pull out Sim City 2000 every once in a while to have some fun, or because I want to show my son a game that's better than Minecraft.

And, of course, the problem isn't multiplayer, the problem is that you have to play on their servers for singleplayer.

That is good, I'm not against the people that really would do this in any way at all. But I also think it's fair to say the majority of buyers rarely go back to something old and if they do it's a couple games. So if Sim City is that for you, then the best news is and as I have said, they have been upfront with where they are going with the game to us. If always online, multiplayer being a bad thing, server running for 10, 20, 50 years is very important for you, then you do have a choice to make.

I will stand by that many of those things are small %'s of players, most likely even wee percentages. The always online will affect everyone but I suggest that the small amount of ISP/Server downtime, one can be stable in their own feelings to deal with that and find something else to do, other than rage. As all the biggest games are relying on online working most of the time. COD MP, WoW... as I said the biggest games.

Blue's commentators in very generalist terms come off several times as paranoid, limited in scope (very single player centric base I'm finding) and phobic. That said, there is still good stuff in those comments and there are still good opinions outside of those type responses. Meaning, I still like to chat, but there are some really fearful walls that shot up that are a little over the top, imo. "Slippery Slope" mentalities if you will.

It's not really a slippery slope argument because the slope has already been slid down. Take their sun-setting of Simpsons Tapped Out for older iPhones. That is effectively a single player free to play game with a pay component, but it's all hosted by EA. They remove the server, the single player game that you may have put money in to is no longer accessible for play. You're not paying for software, you're paying for a temporary license to access the software. SC5 will be a full price game, but you aren't getting the same level of service that you did for the same standard market price as earlier offerings, instead you're getting a temporary license.

Do you have any doubt that they will sunset the SC5 servers when the user threshold drops too low to effectively monetize the base through downloadable content?

With Steam, we have a promise from Valve that if Steam ever sunsets you still own your game and Steam will effectively release it to you while disabling its own security. There is no such promise from EA regarding games like SC5 that are completely remotely hosted(and I have no idea if there is such a promise for Origin).

As the industry has consolidated in to a handful of publicly owned companies, the industry has regressed in buyer's rights. This is factual. There is no reason to believe that those "rights" won't continue to be eroded, particularly as companies like Sony buy companies like Gaikai. Realistically, all software has been moving in this direction for years, not just videogames. It's cheaper(less money spent on publicly available tools, like server tools, map tools, etc) and it's a monetization machine(EA charges for a wide variety of things because of this, such as a fee for purchasing a used game and wanting to play it online). In the public company world, those are the only two things that matter.

HorrorScope wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 11:53:Sims 2 was released in 2005, 7 years ago. Do you realize a lot of games that don't retire servers, simply have their servers stop working over time because of things like "out of business" etc?

I for one would not be playing SC5 in 7 years if I were to buy it any time soon.

I am one not to freak out over news like this. There are so many other things in your life that have this shelf life that you miss or let slide, but a gaming server... oh this is critical stuff here folks.

The closer truth is there are lot of reasons why you won't be buying SC5. This is just another one, so now which one exactly is the one that breaks the camels back? My main reason not buying will be the one where the game isn't any good, no matter drm, always online or retiring of servers. But if this game is amazing, I can tell you those last 3 reasons will not stop me. Most games don't last me a month and I'm not even talking bad games, who's kidding who here?

We've all had our reasons 100 fold on why not to support EA, that comes prior to the turn of the millennium.

Maybe it's just you. I still pull out Sim City 2000 every once in a while to have some fun, or because I want to show my son a game that's better than Minecraft.

And, of course, the problem isn't multiplayer, the problem is that you have to play on their servers for singleplayer.

It was pretty bad and, for once, it didn't seem like Colin's fault. The story and directing were just awful.

When has it ever been Colin's fault? All the bad movies he's been in just seem like bad movies overall. Daredevil comes to mind. He was entertaining in Fright Night and Horrible Bosses and I hear Seven Psychopaths was good.

I haven't seen this remake, but I plan to rent it.

He's never likable. The one movie where I wasn't rooting against him was The Recruit, which was actually kind of decent.

Dell does well in the enterprise space, just like Microsoft. They are smart, unlike Blackberry, in that they are dropping out of that market when their name brings no built in appeal to it and their offerings aren't consumercentric.

Prez wrote on Nov 11, 2012, 20:14:Wow, time can really play tricks on the memory. I never would have guessed off the top of my head that there has been 6 years between each generation.

The PS1 only came out in Japan in 1994 - it was released in the US in 1995 (after the SNES was released in 1990 and 1991 in those regions), and the PS3 was often considered to be released a year late in the current generation, as the Wii and Xbox 360 both came out in 2005.

And the PS3 clearly outclasses the Wii and generally outpaces the 360 in performance. Late for the generation, but not suffering for it hardware wise.